Effects of Rural Livelihood Activities on Income Inequality and Poverty Reduction in the Guinean Coastal Area


  •  Boubacar Balde    
  •  Hajime Kobayashi    
  •  Akira Ishida    
  •  Makoto Nohmi    
  •  Mohamed Esham    
  •  Ichizen Matsumura    
  •  Emmanuel Tolno    

Abstract

This paper investigated the influence of portfolio of livelihood activities on income inequality and poverty reduction in the Guinean coastal area. The study used primary data collected through a survey of salt producers, mangrove rice farmers and wood loggers along the Guinean coast in Koba. The survey used a questionnaire to collect data on peasants’ characteristics and their income sources. To examine the effects of livelihood activities on income inequality and poverty reduction, Gini decomposition analysis and poverty decomposition techniques such as Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) index were used. The results revealed that salt production and vegetable production give rise to income inequality. Therefore, by enhancing the share of income from mangrove rice production, wood extraction, non-farm income, livestock, seasonal crop production, lowland rice production, remittance and perennial crop production has the potentials to reduce income disparity among the peasants. Poverty measures also revealed that the degree of poverty reduction largely depends on the extent to which livelihood activities of the peasants can be diversified. The government could remedy the income inequality arising from salt production and reduce poverty by providing machineries and tools to poorer farmers to ensure their participation in salt production. Further, this research also highlights the need to put more emphasis on mangrove rice production due to its high potential to reduce income inequality in the region.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact